netdev - Re: [pull request][net-next 0/3] Mellanox, mlx5 GRE tunnel offloads

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87shg2by9a.fsf@stressinduktion.org>
Date:   Mon, 04 Sep 2017 11:37:21 +0200
From:   Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
Cc:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [pull request][net-next 0/3] Mellanox, mlx5 GRE tunnel offloads

Hello,

Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il> writes:

[...]

> On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> <hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
>> Sorry, I think I am still confused.
>>
>> I just want to make sure that you don't use the first nibble after the
>> mpls bottom of stack label in any way as an indicator if that is an IPv4
>> or IPv6 packet by default. It can be anything. The forward equivalence
>> class tells the stack which protocol you see.
>>
>> If you match on the first nibble behind the MPLS bottom of stack label
>> the '4' or '6' respectively could be part of a MAC address with its
>> first nibble being 4 or 6, because the particular pseudowire is EoMPLS
>> and uses no control world.
>>
>> I wanted to mention it, because with addition of e.g. VPLS this could
>> cause problems down the road and should at least be controllable? It is
>> probably better to use Entropy Labels in future.
>>
>
> Hi Hannes,
>
> I see your concern now, but still it has nothing to do with the
> driver, the whole change is only to simplify driver code to not push
> full blown matching steering rules into the HW, and simply replace it
> with a one bit command.

Sorry, I very much got the impression from the cover letter plus the
descriptions of the patches.

> Regarding your concern, I will need to check with the HW guys and
> review the processing algorithm that identifies IP packets over MPLs,
> and will get back to you.
>
> if there is really a problem, then yes, we might need to make it
> controllable ..

Thanks for looking into this. I do think it can be added as a feature
but I very much think such logic should be disabled by default.

Thanks,
Hannes